Stephan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 109 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * * * * The court of appeals' refusal to adopt an exclusionary rule in these circumstances is perhaps due to failure on our part to adequately explain the full significance of our prior decisions. Electronic recording of suspect interrogations was described in those cases, rather ambiguously, as "part of [a law enforcement agency's] duty to preserve evidence." Mallott v. State, 608 P.2d at 743 n. 5 (citing Catlett v. State, 585 P.2d 553 , 558 n. 5 (Alaska 1978)).[10] Today, we resolve that ambiguity. Such recording is a requirement of state due process when the interrogation occurs in a place of detention and recording is feasible.[11] We reach this conclusion because we are convinced that recording, in such circumstances, is now a reasonable and necessary safeguard, essential to the adequate protection of the accused's right to counsel, his right against self incrimination and, ultimately, his right to a fair trial.[12] [10] In Catlett , we held that, because of the important due process rights involved, evidence should not be destroyed based on an investigator's evaluation of its usefulness. Instead, state investigative agencies should have standard procedures for the preservation of evidence obtained during an investigation. 585 P.2d at 558 n. 5. The destruction of photographs in Catlett did not amount to a due process infringement because the photographs would not have raised a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds as to the defendant's guilt. [11] Unif.R.Crim.P. 243 ”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kekona · Snyder v. State

2. “Caveat. We recognize that many custodial interrogations must take place in the field, where recording may not be feasible. Because of this, the rule that we announced today has limited application; it applies only to custodial interrogations conducted in a place of detention such as a police station or jail, where it is reasonable to assume that recording equipment is available, or can be made available with little effort. In a future case, however, we may be persuaded to extend the application of this rule, particularly if it appears that law enforcement officials are engaging in bad faith efforts to circumvent the recording requirements set forth in this opinion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Shindle v. State · State v. Amend